My previous article provided an illustration of how Augustus used political restraint and compromise to establish his role as the center of gravity in Roman politics [1]. He could have simply used the military to force his will upon a defeated and recalcitrant Senate—as his adoptive father, Julius Caesar, had done. Yet, Caesar’s example had demonstrated both the illegitimacy and volatility of a system based entirely upon naked power—eventually someone will be bold or desperate enough to take you down, unraveling all your efforts in an instant. As Henry Kissinger points out, “legitimacy should not be confused with justice. It means no more than an […] agreement about the nature of workable agreements and about the permissible aims and methods” of each source of authority [2]. In other words, a legitimate distribution of political authority is based upon the reality of power relations, not an ideal. No individual or institution can ever be granted power without possessing the political leverage to demand it. As a consequence, the Augustan system can be a useful model for increasing the power of American states without tearing the union asunder.
First, principle alone will not be enough to justify decentralization—appealing to the intentions of the Founding Fathers is a waste of time (a topic I will cover in later article). State governments must assume from the start that business and political interests—both in Washington D.C. and within their own borders—will be hostile and subversive elements in any challenge to the status quo. These interests must be placated by offering local policies and arrangements that “out-bid” those currently offered by the federal government. Like Augustus, state and local governments must remove the incentives for the ruling elites and average citizens to align their interests with rival (i.e. federal) institutions. Think of it as creating a competitive policy market.
Second, having cultivated the personal loyalty of local citizens and business interests, states must then use this political leverage to prompt federal institutions to pass (and support) legislation that legitimizes increased state autonomy. Augustus achieved this by offering residual military and political power to the Senate. In the case of the US, states would probably have to offer Congress and the President greater control over foreign policy in exchange for relinquishing domestic authority. Given the fact that many a federal official with substantial foreign policy achievements have been brought down by domestic failures (i.e. Wilson, Nixon, etc.), this sort of trade-off might not be so unwelcome on the part of the central government. In this way, the devolution of domestic power to state institutions will be secured through existing mechanisms and institutional bargaining; making it difficult for the central government to renege on such an arrangement without a blatant—and illegal—use of force.
Third, under the Augustan system the Roman treasury was dispersed among various local and provincial governments. This, however, was most likely done on the basis of expediency—because travel and communications were slow, it would have made practical sense for the individuals on the spot to posses the financial means to address local problems. In these states united, the decentralization of the US treasury and the power to tax income would have to be justified on the grounds of the greater role of state governments in administering social and economic policies. Nonetheless, in the spirit of legitimacy and institutional bargaining, the federal government would need a constitutional assurance (most likely an amendment of some sort) that states would fund the federal government, even when sentiments are divided over policy—thus removing the ability of states to bully the central government into impotency as they did under the Articles of Confederation. Given the bargaining power states would have at this point (if the first and second points were adhered to) such an arrangement would be quite possible within the existing framework.
Fourth, just as Augustus backed up his authority with an effective military deterrent, so too must American states acquire an independent means of defending their sovereignty. Having earned the loyalty of their citizens through local social and economic policies, and procured an independent source of financial solvency—all with the blessing of the central government—the ability of states to reestablish a militia system would become increasingly practical. The American military industrial complex is perhaps the most burdensome aspect of the federal budget—as it was for Rome. An ability to dump these costs onto someone else’s shoulders would be very appealing to federal officials. The National Guard—which is already nominally under the control of state governments—would be the perfect mechanism for such an agreement. By agreeing to accept the financial costs of supporting portions of the US military within their jurisdictions, states could stipulate that such forces could not be deployed to active duty by the federal government unless the union was invaded by a foreign power. Likewise, the federal government would retain a residual national force commensurate with its foreign policy obligations.
The steps mentioned above should only be viewed as a very general—dare I say hypothetical—framework for restructuring the American union. This adaptation of Augustan methodology is simply an illustration of how all states have empowered themselves in the past (see articles 3, 4). It must be remembered that American local governments were designed to represent the interests of their citizens to the exclusion of all others [5]. While this is anathema to nationalistic approaches to governance, this institutional selfishness is the only way in which citizens within a system as vast and complex as the United States can have their voices heard.
Political activism which continues to focus primarily on the national level will only prolong the current arrangement of trading one nationally-enforced, ideological dictatorship for another. It is far more difficult for central institutions to thwart the restraints of powerful state governments—who are themselves close enough to their citizens to be restrained—than it is a fractious multitude with ever-changing and often contradictory demands; only demagogues and special interest groups benefit from the latter. The purpose of this theoretical sketch is to encourage debate on how neo-federalism can work. The details involved with this process must be determined by local political leaders and their communities.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Neo-Federalism: reverse engineering a union
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
By the way this is the same person commenting on federal vs confederacy
ReplyDeleteI like the idea and agree with its fundamental idea of decentralization.However The are two key points that I thought were better in theory than practical reality( Im not trying to slam you by the way even jefferson noted the difference between his political ideas and thier practice when he took office)
First I think you are overlooking the power of effectivly apealing to an individuals idealism. I perfectly agree that economic and social incentives must be possible. However made possible not provided, the government should only provide the liberty for a person to provide themselves with possible gains.The government should only offer opprotunity. So including that I believe we do need to refer to the founding intent as well as other ideals. Remember the county was fought by men who died and fought without pay for an idea. There was no economic or social incentive to join, support or hope for the revolution all in the face of impossible odds. If you can effectivly appeal to the full heart of on individualthey will do almost anything.
Second- an all National gaurd army would not be effective. There are several problems. First it allowes for personal quarrells to interfere with national defense when governers disagree on what should be done. Logistics would not be centralized, the army unstandardized with diffrent wepons training tactics and standards. Mobilization would be an even more daunting task because there would be no central chain of command. Militias are effective for local deffence only. That and states would be constantly arguing about one not putting in thier share of national defense dollars or manpower, and only the seaside states would be able to contribute to a navy( those states are even fewer in number bc of the lack of shipyards capable of building such complex ships much less in a cost effective manner)
Our large and mostly wastefull military structure would be better delt with by real and solid reform, returning to having a strong fighting arm and a lean small bereauocratic section. One Key reason Germany lost WWII is that his chain of command was not top down typical chain. It was a mess of overlaping power, juristictions that all led to being capable with out permission by hitler(congress in our situation) We cannot even buy wepons with out national debate and polititians making uninformed decisions instead of letting the military experts deal with it on a set budget.
Overall the goal of having greater state and personal liberty will need to be acomplish via a grassroots campaign appealing to individuals to demand change but also it needs to be brokendown from inside.
you bring up some very good points. However, I do think you over idealize the inception of colonial rebellion. The initial confrontations with Parliament were almost exclusively over economic policies. The biggest mistake the British government made was taxing the lively hoods of the professional classes (i.e. lawyers, printers, merchants). These people were educated and had the means to disseminate their misgivings to a surprisingly literate population.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, as far as as the military goes, I was not making a case for a completely decentralized force. I said that, in exchange for a "defensive only" national guard, the federal government would retain a "national," very standardized, force commensurate with its foreign policy obligations. The idea that the union will be invaded in our lifetime is a bit fanciful. The point of the national guard is to defend states' rights at home from the federal government.
words such as "should" and "ought" in relation to social or political interaction are almost completely irrelevant. People behave in a manner so far removed from how they "ought" or "should," that to base a system of government on such ideals is to place society at the mercy of its most ruthless members. This is perhaps one of the biggest problems I have with Jeffersonian appeals to limited government and one of the central reasons for his problems as president (as you rightly pointed out)
States' rights and personal liberty will never be achieved through appeals to the better angles of our nature or justice. They can only exist in a world that takes the darker side of the human spirit into account. That is the intention of checks and balances: to hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
If states and the people they represent want their sovereignty, they must put themselves in the position to demand it. Grass roots campaigns and tea parties will not change the reality of state governments being completely dependent upon the federal government for just about everything. Therefore, so long as the central government has such leverage over the states and the people, there is absolutely no incentive for it to give up its strangle hold on domestic policy.
Yet, I don't want you think I am dismissing your concerns here. On the contrary, I believe these types of exchanges are the precursor to more effective action. Based on what you have said so far, it does not really appear that there is much disagreement. I would very much like to work with you and others to create realistic strategies for bringing domestic power back down to the lowest possible level.
appeals to American ideals are certainly an important factor in creating popular support for states' rights. But I guess I am arguing for specific strategies that can make those ideals a reality.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem facing a real and workable strategy is the popular mindset concerning the nature and purpose of government specifically the national government. The vast majority are so dependent on the government and dont bother to think of the implications of such a state, or they are confused about the role of government and support the idea of letting thier lives be determined by a power with vastly diffrent concerns. Even the few people I have been able to discuss politics with intelligently cannot make the connection between thier complaints that it impossible to make everyone in such a large and diverse nation happy and the need for true popular sovereignty. I am only about to tart my freshmen year of college as a political science major so the only method of increasing states/individual powers has been to spread the word a few people at a time. Usually they end up agreeing with my small government philosophy while still calling themselves members of one of the major parties(even though the two ideas are opposite)I think that the only way for a real strategy to come about is to not only change the incentives(as you mentioned) but to change popular opinion. Untill people are capable of imagining a local government as being the most important they will just try to create a new massive program(doomed to fail by its nature)centives we offer. Once people demand thier polititans be held locally accountable those polititians will in turn support thier constituents who will hopefully be demanding the power be brought back home so it is actually functioning and legitimate.
ReplyDeletethats suposed to say " with the incentives we offer"
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. Again, that is the purpose of this project. Admittedly, it is just a rough idea at the moment.
ReplyDeleteWe must combine practical solutions with effective marketing. I am in the process of recruiting contributors from all necessary fields. Most of them are from my university in London.
You say you are just starting college? You should consider using this site as a way to sound board your ideas and perhaps help start a grassroots neo-federalist movement in your area.
If you have any ideas on how to make this website more interactive of effective email me at neofed1@gmail.com
ok i'll mention it on other related sites. I found this from the forum on campaign for liberty.
ReplyDeleteIm a poly sci major so i'll have ample opprotunity to bring it up as well.