Federalism

Let’s begin with an approximation of the world famous statement by that noted social philosopher, Rodney King: Can’t we all just get along? I think we might just be able to do that. I ask you to follow me along a slightly meandering mental path.

In 1962, I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago (freezing my ass off). I did research work for a professor who taught a class in federalism. It was his hypothesis that the U. S. political system was unique, because, unlike all other political systems, the preponderance of power flow was from localities to the center. My project involved the Interstate highway system. That project was begun by Eisenhower. As a young officer, he was tasked to lead a detachment of troops, vehicles and material across the country. Given the difficulties he encountered, he concluded that we would have a hell of a time defending the country if we were attacked. As president, he decided to remedy the situation. The result was an almost unalloyed success. The work was completed (except for some corruption in the contracting process) in an expeditious and timely fashion, at a very reasonable cost. It produced a great deal of economic activity. It was popular. A poster child public works project. By the time it was complete, freeways went thru and/or around every major city in the country . . . except San Francisco. We were slated to have three freeways thru town. One (the Embarcadero) got partially built (and torn down after the ’89 quake); one ended as a stub at Franklin Street (also torn down); and one (west side) never started. All the result of the efforts of one woman (whose name I can no longer remember) who ginned up a firestorm of opposition. Fascinating case study and good support for my professor’s hypothesis.

Since 1962, the hypothesis has become less viable. Washington is full of bureaucrats and lobbyists from whom political power is flowing into the nooks and crannies of our daily life. The Federal Register is hundreds of thousands of pages and grows on a daily basis. Lots of legislation is just a blank check for rule writing. In 1960, the Washington lobbying establishment consisted of about 3,000 people. Today, it is 30,000. And that’s just the folks who register. A combination of politicians seeking contributions from interest groups and businesses looking for a place in the trough, bureaucrats (many of them pursuing an ideologically driven agenda) writing regulations, and lobbyists fine tuning the process thru regulatory capture, seek to control the content of student lunches and assert jurisdiction over every puddle in the land.

At root, government is a tradeoff between freedom and security. We give power to government because it promises to protect us (and give us other people’s money). But the process can get out of hand. Government becomes its own interest group and writes rules to increase its power, entrench that power, and provide security for itself. What started out as protection becomes oppression.

I am a Libertarian (of sorts) because I place a higher value on personal freedom than we currently enjoy. I think the government should stick to the powers allotted to it in the Constitution, plus a few that time has taught us can only be performed by the national government. I don’t want to abolish all regulation, but believe that regulators should be referees dedicated to insuring a level playing field, not quarterbacks/coaches directing play. I believe that the revolving door between business/interest groups and senior bureaucracy should be locked (lose your pension if you move to the private sector). I believe all regulators should be regularly rotated to help resist regulatory capture.

But my desire for less government applies only the FEDERAL government. Like the authors of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, I believe the best government is the one closest to the governed. Any state of city or county or neighborhood association should be able to impose any level of social welfare regime, social engineering scheme, transgender bathroom access, gay wedding cake governance it chooses, as long as the basic rights of its citizens guaranteed by the Constitution are not violated. People living in those jurisdictions who don’t like it can vote with their U-Haul. The GIGANTIC CAVEAT is that you don’t get to impose your social engineering on jurisdictions that choose a different path. People in Santa Cruz and Tyler, Texas do not seem to want the same lifestyle. So be it. Let each choose it’s own path and let us be tolerant of the views of those who choose a lifestyle different than our own. In this system, we can achieve Rodney’s vision. We can all get along. We don’t have to fight to the death about which party rules Washington (and gets to tilt the regulatory tsunami its chosen direction). If we preserve core principals and preach tolerance for the views of others, we can live together in political peace.

Your question might be why a red-neck right winger like me lives in the Peoples’ Republic of San Francisco. At root, probably inertia. I chose S.F. as a place to live in 1967 and I’m used to it. Part of it is physical attraction. S. F. is like a really beautiful woman who is stupid and cranky. She still gets action. But the rational reason is that the end result of the regulatory state is monopoly profit for those who learn how to work it. You can rent a very nice new apartment in Texas for about $1,200 a month. Developers scrape to make a slim margin. Same amenity in S. F. costs you $5,000 a month, and it is a bitch to build any more. This is why developers from all over the world are trying to get a foothold in our town. The ostensible reason for a lot of regulation is compassion for the unprotected; the practical effect is to grease the skids for the clever/connected. I am a slow learner, but I gradually figured out how to work the rules.