For Carter, Christian conservative ends can justify big national government means.

Actually, that wasn't my point at all. My view is that the Thompson style of federalism simply offers a shift from Big National Government to Big State Government. I doubt the Founders ever envisioned that the states would have as much unchecked power as they do today. Yet Thompson seems to be fine with it. That doesn't seem very conservative.

But for libertarian-minded conservatives like me (and, apparently, Thompson), we must uphold the principles underlying federalism.

I'm not sure that this makes sense. while it is a noble (though limited) philosophy, there is nothing inherently libertarian about federalism.

Shifting the level of state power around does not change the fact that the state is still being given unchecked power and authority. I would have assumed that you would be a libertarian first and a federalist second rather than vice versa.

I doubt the Founders ever envisioned that the states would have as much unchecked power as they do today.

I'd have to disagree.

Shifting the level of state power around does not change the fact that the state is still being given unchecked power and authority.

The check, of course, is the voting citizens of the state. Under Big Government Conservatism, however, the check is the voting citizens of the nation, which provides far less control and, hence, freedom.

In essence, I view federalism as conducive to libertarianism. For many policies, and perhaps most, the power resides with the states. As a libertarian, I think those states should further keep such policies out of the hands of the government and I will vote for leaders who support those views. However, I will not support a national law just because it reduces government when the authority for such things resided with the state.

***I'd have to disagree.***


On no, I have it on good authority (i.e., Ron Paul's supporters) that the Founders were all minarchists who hated the idea of individual states having power. ; )


***The check, of course, is the voting citizens of the state. Under Big Government Conservatism, however, the check is the voting citizens of the nation, which provides far less control and, hence, freedom.***


What if you live in California? The population of the US is 300 million; the population of California is roughly 36 million. On one side you have the input of 1 in 300 million. On the other you have 1 in 36 million. Is there really any difference? The individual still has no check on the state power when it has become so large.


At the time of the Founders the entire population of the US was roughly 3 million people. That is the current population of Cleveland.


I stand by my main point: that strict adherence to federalism is not enough; the states are way too powerful and have too much control.


***In essence, I view federalism as conducive to libertarianism. For many policies, and perhaps most, the power resides with the states.***


Federalism is a good regulative principle but a poor proscriptive one. It can tell us who should have power but not whether they should have the power in the first place. I agree that, in general, the legitimate power of government should reside with the states (if not even lower). But how do you restrain Big Government at the state level when the individual states are larger than most foreign countries?


***As a libertarian, I think those states should further keep such policies out of the hands of the government and I will vote for leaders who support those views. However, I will not support a national law just because it reduces government when the authority for such things resided with the state.***


On this point we are in agreement. Where we differ is on what authority lies with the states. Ironically, on this my position is more libertarian than yours. For example, I don't think the state has the right to redefine marriage at all. I also don't think the state has the authority to take your life without due process of law. So while I think that the states should retain their legitimate powers, when they overstep their authority they should be restrained by the federal branch if need be.

My view of federalism is that, in general, the legitimate powers of government should reside with the states for the reason you pointed out: we have little control over the federal government. But I also think that it is legitimate for the federal branch to restrain the states when they start running roughshod over people's liberties and/or overstepping their boundaries.

For example, I don't think the state has the right to redefine marriage at all.

Then who does? States have the power to set minimum ages for marriage, permissible degrees of consanguinity (half the states permit first-cousin marriage; half ban it), divorce requirements, etc. It is state laws, not federal law, that prohibits polygamy. Every state has state statutes governing marriage, while marriage law is virtually nonexistant on the federal level.

So why shouldn't it be the states, with the people of a given state deciding, through their legislature, how they wish their state marriage laws to look?

Federalism is a good regulative principle but a poor proscriptive one. It can tell us who should have power but not whether they should have the power in the first place. I agree that, in general, the legitimate power of government should reside with the states (if not even lower). But how do you restrain Big Government at the state level when the individual states are larger than most foreign countries?

In the discussion you are having, it is unclear to me whether "federalism" refers to a politician's philosophical preference for reserving power to the states when possible, or to a respect for and desire to maintain the federal system as embedded in the Constitution. The Ramesh Ponnuru column to which your (Joe Carter's) post links discusses this distinction, and I agree with him that the distinction needs to be recognized, and that the definition of federalism that is being used must be stated, for a discussion of federalism to be meaningful. I think that there could be more than the two understandings of federalism discussed by Ponnuru, including combinations of the two he discusses, but it isn't clear to me which (or how many) of these Fred Thompson believes in. He has discussed federalism both as a value and in reference to the requirements of the Constitution.

If we're thinking of federalism as respect for constitutional rules, though, federalism may not answer the question of whether a specific power should be possessed by anyone, but that is not unusual for a procedural rule. We can have respect for procedural rules and a philosophy on what should be done within the procedural bounds, or a philosophy that itself includes a respect for procedural rules.

So while I think that the states should retain their legitimate powers, when they overstep their authority they should be restrained by the federal branch if need be.

I would agree with this if there were any way for it to work without also working in reverse. If there could be a system in which the federal government steps in when states try to do something unjust or inappropriate, but does not step in to interfere with state business in ways that are themselves unjust and inappropriate, it would be wonderful. However, I see no reason to believe that the abandonment of federalism would be so selective, promoting smaller, more objectively just state governments. It is for a similar reason that we do not trust any branch of the federal government with complete or unchecked power over another -- the more power we give to one governmental institution to correct another, the more it will be able to interfere with the other in ways that are harmful. To the extent that it is required by the Constitution, we should honor federalism for the same reason that we honor any neutral procedural rule (other than that it is the law, which we respect) -- because we think it tends to promote justice and good government, and because if we, as conservatives, ignore the rule when it would be inconvenient to us, our opponents would also ignore it when the rule is inconvenient to them. I also think that there is at least some validity to the argument that some of what we think is right may not be right for everyone, everywhere in the country, and that to the extent that we doubt that the wisdom or effectiveness of a policy is universal, we should allow parts of the country to go their own way. Of course, that should not apply to clear questions of justice (if we're sure they're as clear as we think they are).

A place here where I agree, JC, that I got it wrong was that I thought that "Frederalism" (see below) would let everyone project their preferred policies onto the man, and it does seem that that has not been true. And it looks like he has avoided throwing any even vaguely pinkish meat, let alone red, to the Dobsonian wing of the right. The faction of the religious right that insists on their nominee being a _champion_ of their cause is thus not to be satisfied with mutterings of state's rights, etc. But he has nonetheless tried hard to be pretty inoffensive to those with less stringent demands.

For example, if he is truly a knight of federalism -- if that is indeed his _one and only_ principle -- then it is hard to see why he was so mealy-mouthed and forgetful on the topic of Terry Schiavo. Congress' behavior in that incident was flagrantly anti-federalist... and yet he chose to feign ignorance about the particulars of the incident. I'm not impressed.

Where I think you're still wrong here is in a confusion between an actual substantive version of federalism as a political philosophy (in either sense discussed by Karl above)-- call this "Federalism" -- and federalism merely as a political slogan -- "Frederalism". I still think it's functioning in the discourse here overwhelmingly as an empty placeholder that invites potential voters to project in their own policy preferences. Putting aside the Dobsonites, everyone on both left and right agrees that there are _some_ issues that are best handled federally, and _some_ that should be addressed at state/local levels. And, in general, everyone thinks that the issues that they can get a national majority on should be handled at the federal level; and the issues that they can only get a local majority on should be handled at the local level. Perhaps it's a sad fact, but I think it's a fact nonetheless. The appeal of Frederalism is that it lets individuals plug in their own preferred mix of national and local policy preferences, and still feel all warm, fuzzy, and constitutional. It's extremely similar to the vacuous slogan of opposing "activist judges", which has time and again been shown to mean "judges who rule ways other than I like".

When Thompson starts putting some real substance on this principle, then I'll believe that he's got some real Federalism that he's working with. Until then, he's a Frederalist in my book.

Btw, does anyone really buy that line about his being on the losing side of a number of 99-to-1 votes? It's not like he had any sort of reputation for this sort of thing back when he was in office. I'd like to see some substantiation of that claim, and in particular to know what these amazing votes were that, say, Orrin Hatch, Teddy Kennedy, Trent Lott, Arlen Specter, Tom Daschle, and Lauch Faircloth all agreed on -- but not Thompson. One wants to say: really? I suspect an overblown campaign soundbite.

Anyway, Thompson is, like, SO early-September, and it's already, like, almost late-September. Shouldn't we all be talking about Newt now? ;-)