Are Our Methods Unsound?

A fascinating thing happened last month. The current governor of Texas, Rick Perry, began using secessionist language in various speeches and interviews to convey his displeasure with the Obama administration. My interest in this recent phenomenon has little to do with his remarks. Rather, the concern is with the media response to the very topic of secession. For instance, in an interview with Tom Delay, Chris Mathews responded to the former congressman’s remarks on the subject with utter abhorrence and a tone of condescending disbelief. After all, everyone knows that the American Civil War proved definitively that secession was illegal…an unthinkable treason. Only a far-right survivalist, praying for the end-of-days could possibly consider threatening the integrity of the American Union….right?

To be fair, Obama is taking the hit for many of his predecessors, moving forward with long overdue and politically divisive reforms for an ailing imperial system. If one wishes to be innovative in the future, it is imperative that existing institutions are stabilized—no matter how antiquated or counterproductive they have become. Whether he gets four years or eight, it will be up to the rest of us to take advantage of the state of flux he leaves in his wake. Furthermore, Governor Perry’s ode to states’ rights smacks of political opportunism; an attempt to energize his more conservative base for an impending and uncertain gubernatorial election.

This brings us to the current state of American political discourse. The Texas governor’s tactics are at the heart of what undermines traditional states’ rights arguments. So long as state autonomy within the Union continues to be associated with the Confederate flag, extremism, and political opportunism, advocates for the more practical aspects of states’ rights will continue to be marginalized with the rest. In my mind, Mr. Mathews’ reaction indicates that conventional battle cries for decentralized governance are unsound and counterproductive. Moreover, attempts to stem the tide of centralization or improve the efficacy of federal governance via national parties have failed and will continue to do so.

In short, there is something fundamentally wrong with the current condition of political thought in the United States. Terms such as nation, state, union, law, and freedom are tossed about with very little thought as to their true meaning or implications. What passes for serious philosophical deliberation consists of talking points, two minute interviews, watered-down campaign slogans, and catchy sound bites. While it is easy (convenient?) to dismiss an in-depth discussion on history and terminology as semantics, anyone who has ever signed a dense legal document for a car or student loan knows that the devil is in the details. Nothing of value can ever be gleaned from such anti-intellectualism. It is time for states' rights advocates to set aside conventional wisdom and articulate a new way forward.