Politicians fall every
few decades for an impractical fantasy of ideologists: the fantasy about
dispersing Federal departments away from Washington. This would do nothing for
freedom and nothing for American power. But it would do a lot for making
government more costly and inefficient.
Politicians fall for
this because ideologists keep falling for it. A lot of passion and rhetoric in
America – libertarian rhetoric on Left and Right, Southern rhetoric,
authoritarian rhetoric – is spent on confusing individual freedom with states
rights. It is also spent on confusing actual liberty under law -- rights of
buying and selling without coercion, rights of conducting business without
hindrance from crime, rights of walking the streets without fear, rights of
discussing without threat from ideologists who want to control the space --
with libertarian anti-government ideology.
Undermining America
Much of this passion is
a matter of people taking out their resentments on their country.
Resentments are always harbored by a lot of ideologists against their society;
it is a natural thing in the ideological class. Which is why this rhetoric is
in reality about undermining America, not making America great again.
A proper Federal
government has a capital. It does its basic work there. It tries to do it
coherently and reliably, so that -- as Alexander Hamilton explained -- people
can count on the constancy of the laws and plan their lives and business
intelligently. It may send some specialized technical agencies around the
country, but it does not waste its money dispersing its core policy and power
agencies to distant cities.
It also does not let
state governments oppress their portion of its population. Or obstruct national
policy and divide the country.
From Washington to
Jackson, from Hume to Hamilton, actual conservatism has been for strong
government. That has meant a strong central authority, as the Founding Fathers knew
well.
A paleoconservative forerunning of Trump on the
need for strong government
This was explained well
by Thomas Molnar, a founder of paleoconservatism and thus a forefather of
President Trump’s movement. Molnar taught that, while conservatism is for
strong government, the Left has always tried to weaken the country by
undermining the government in its core functions: strength in
maintaining the public order and upholding the society and its security, and
the ability to make hard decisions for steering the country safely. The
Left's undermining of core government authority serves to reduce government to
a services agency for interest groups. Left libertarian rhetoric easily tempts
Right libertarians into joining the Left in undermining this
authority. The government ends up compulsively expanding its services, as
a kind of compensation for its weakness and loss of its real identity. Thus we
get big, expensive, weak government -- flabby without being effective,
authoritarian without being authoritative.
Conservatism, by
contrast, was supposed to be – and mostly has been, ever since Washington and
Hamilton -- for a government that has real strength for implementing those
basic functions of government: maintaining public order and national security;
maintaining a stable currency and a market, with nationwide scope for free
movement and exchange; conducting effective foreign policy; fighting enemies
and epidemics; and growing and upholding nationwide loyalty.
In other policy areas,
such as education and welfare, conservatism has taken varying postures. It
views them as a practical matter: Federalized where needed, State where as good
or better there. How big at the center, how much limited there? Hamilton's
rule was: Neither minimalist nor bloated -- both are ideological postures
-- but practical. To be adapted for each issue, to fit what works
best on it. But big enough to maintain the nationwide cohesion of American
society and prevent rebellions. And bound to grow more national with time,
as Americans bought and sold more nationwide and moved around more.
The actual American
Constitution is in fact for such a strong, effective, authoritative Federal
government, with supreme authority over all the aforementioned core
governmental areas. It supports at the same time effective, authoritative State
governments in other areas of business, in partnership with a gradual
development of Federal authority in those areas when it too is useful
there.
The strong Federal government has built up our
liberties
The view that central
strength builds liberty was the view of the original American Federalists, as
anyone can see by actually reading The Federalist Papers and noticing what they
say. Their real words are very different from the words that our many
ideological writers and teachers have tried to put in their mouths. They
actually say that the old, pre-1789 confederation hadn’t been very good for
either individual freedom or for government effectiveness, because it allowed
State governments too much power to interfere with what have to be nationwide
Federal tasks, too much power to disrupt the functioning of the Federal
Government and the nationwide economy, and too much power to act on the whims
of local majorities. And that the new Federal Constitution was needed to cure
those problems.
Hamilton and Madison
alike argued that a stronger Federal Government will be better for our
liberties. They proved right. American freedom survived for more than 200 years
since, contrary to pre-1789 expectations. And not only survived but grew
stronger and fuller. It overcame the horrible tyranny of slavery. It gradually
extended more protections of freedom to the majority – women and children.
False allies would paint Trump, like Andrew Jackson,
into a corner
When Calhoun tried to
draw President Jackson into a corner with his doctrines on sovereignty and
secession rights for the States, the President down put him down sharply:
Jackson reminded Calhoun that our highest loyalty is to the Union.
Today, Trump's enemies
and his false allies alike are making the same attempt to paint him into a
corner of weakening the country. The media and Democrats, knowing that most
Americans are against weakening the country either at home or abroad,
constantly say that that's what Trump is really about. Some of Trump's false
allies on his ideological fringe, always trying to be more-extremist-than-thou,
jump in and say "Yes, yes! That's what we're for! That's what Trump's
really for!" The symbiotic din on Left and Right often drowns out Trump
himself. It can make it sound like that really is what Trump is about -- until
Trump steps in and does the opposite.
Fortunately Trump is a
great admirer of President Jackson. His false allies should remember that. He
is capable of giving them an even harsher rebuke than Jackson gave to Calhoun.
For now, it was only a
mild rebuke that Trump gave when a journalist tried to back him into the corner
and name Vance as his successor. He reminded the journalist that there are
other good people around, specifically Marco Rubio.
Rubio in fact has
represented Trump much better than Vance on foreign policy.
Antifederalist Rhetoric Keeps Misleading America
Our Antifederalist
rhetoric has had a way of misleading us time after time into self-defeating
steps. Thus, in recent decades, two great presidents, Richard Nixon and Ronald
Reagan, fell for the bad idea -- essentially an Antifederalist one -- of
dispersing Federal departments all around the country. Nixon never had time to
act on his talk about this, but if he had, he would have reached the same
conclusion that the Reagan Administration was later brought to from
experience: that very little can be done this way, it isn’t worth the cost, and
the real problems for our freedom lie elsewhere
This hasn’t stopped some
Rightists from falling for it again, and talking again under Trump about
dispersing the Government around the country. It is, for many libertarians,
another go at deconstructing the government.
American Success or American Self-Denigration: Which
will prevail?
The success of American
freedom for more than two centuries doesn’t stop the ideologists in both
parties from believing and saying, year after year, that our freedom is dying
and we have to say it by deconstructing our government. They invoke what they
make sound like a wonderful freedom from 250 years ago, now nearly gone. It is
a rhetoric that is false to who we have been and who we actually are. We have
sometimes paid a high price for it.
The worst case of
self-destructive action on the libertarian rhetoric was the secessionist
movement of 1861. It nearly brought our country down. Fortunately it failed,
but only at a terrible cost.
Most of us thought we
had learned better after this. Yet polls nowadays show that large minorities
still say they favor break-up. Up to 40% among Southern Republicans say this,
and nearly as many among West Coast and New England Democrats.
Fortunately the
Federalist understanding of America -- the understanding that they made the
Constitution to unite America into a strong, coherent, prosperous country, not
to keep it divided -- still predominates among our people, and in the
elected leaderships in both parties if not the louder talking heads on TV. This
majority always in the end overcame the terrible damages that the
Antifederalist rhetoric kept seducing us into. It has prevailed at every
turning point in our history and seen us through to still greater things.
The good people of
America must make sure it prevails again today.
