Skip to main content

The Tea Party, the states and the Constitution

That's what Ben and I talk abut in this week's Scripps column. Stop me if you've heard this before:

The proposed amendment spits in the eye of the same Founders whom conservatives make such a show of revering.

Before the Constitution, the United States was governed -- if you can call it that -- by the Articles of Confederation. Under that system, Congress functioned more like today's United Nations Security Council, a fractious and paralyzed body that let each state act as a sort of sovereign nation with veto power over every act of the national government.

It didn't work. Letting the states have that much power made it impossible to get anything done. The adoption of the Constitution didn't just fix those shortcomings: Read The Federalist Papers and it's clear the Founders believed the new system represented a decisive point when the multiple states decided they truly were a nation rather than a collection of small, weak, independent kingdoms.

There was opposition to that vision. A group of men who called themselves the "Anti-Federalists" wanted to continue the old ways of state primacy and campaigned hard against the Constitution. They lost the argument, or so it seemed. The emergence of the proposed new amendment suggests that -- for all their tri-corner hats and Gadsden flags -- today's Tea Party set has more in common with the Anti-Federalists who tried to stop the Constitution from becoming law than they do with the actual Founders. It's funny, if you think about it.

As a practical matter, giving states more federal power would also blur the lines between the two forms of government, making a real hash of things. Voting for state senators and governors and attorneys general might be determined by their stands on national -- rather than local -- issues. The proposed amendment doesn't just repudiate the work of the Founders; it's probably just a bad idea on its own merits.


Popular posts from this blog


I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…