The Local Option: How Local Governments Are Our Best Hope
For many American politics seems out of control. As we enter the voting booth, all options make our skin crawl. We bemoan choosing between terrible and beyond terrible candidates, yet do little to remedy the situation. Rather than merely complaining every four years, we should proactively pursue a political framework that offers better representation.
Federal politicians are too geographically and ideologically removed from their constituents to represent them meaningfully. The sheer size and diversity of the nation requires policies that disregard local ramifications. In the end, wealthy and heavily populated areas of the country, which tend to be politically liberal, dominate the federal system. More conservative but sparsely populated areas of the country are left frustrated.
This problem wasn’t unforeseen. When our country was forming, many called for a more local government that would represent the sensibilities of communities better. These Antifederalists argued that state governments should operate as sovereign republics that would join together in “friendship” to meet primarily international needs. Although the Antifederalist plan was defeated, their writings offer clues for how to work toward a better political situation today. As Christians in a democratic republic, we have a duty to provide the best government possible (Rom. 13:3-6).
The Antifederalist Tradition
On December 4, 1776, the American colonies joined together in revolt against Great Britain. Having concluded that King George III’s rule was unjust, the Continental Congress declared independence. After the Treaty of Paris (1783) ended the war, the former colonies began the arduous process of putting their society back together, but not every state was paying their share of the war debt punctually. Some determined that the Articles of Confederation were too weak to enforce necessary requisitions and sanctions against the states.[1]
Even though “all agreed . . . things could not go on this way,” fixing the situation was divisive.[2] Two groups emerged, proposing differing courses of action. The Federalists, led by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, proposed a strong federal government that would be superior to the states.
Southern planters, New England middling sorts, and rural farmers from everywhere joined together to form the Antifederalists.[3] Their critiques of the Federalist plan were just as diverse. In fact, historian Saul Cornell argues that their wide-ranging complaints about the proposed constitution inhibited their ability to win the national debate.[4]
Although the Antifederalists are often summarily dismissed in history textbooks and courses, their critiques of the Federalist system are still important. Beyond helping the compromise that gave us the House of Representatives and ensuring that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to protect the rights of citizens, “diverse historians, political theorists, and legal scholars have come to view the Anti-Federalists as spokesmen for an important alternative constitutional heritage.”[5]
Federal Farmer was one of the more influential Antifederalist philosophers, writing several pamphlets that were circulated throughout the states.[6] His writing articulates well the dangers of centralization through federal government and can help us consider political changes for our day.
Central vs Local Government
Historian Paul Johnson argues that the “original idea of the United States was a coming together of the states, as sovereign bodies, to create an umbrella-state over them, to do certain things as the states should delegate to it.”[7] However, the Federalists wanted to scrap this system so that a stronger federal government could be put in place. Antifederalists like Farmer argued that the proposed Constitution would eventually circumvent the states, diminish effective representation, and directly exert power over citizens. History has proven him right.
The Antifederalists feared the “structure and powers” of the Federalist system would “encourage the eventual demise of state and local politics.”[8] Farmer considered the Federalist plan as a “first important step,” aimed at forming “one consolidated government of the United States.”[9] For him and other Antifederalists, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution left too much to interpretation.
Instead, they argued that express delegation of powers and duties were necessary to resist the overwhelming temptation to consolidate power.[10] Farmer suggested that the states be consolidated enough to perform “certain national objects,” while still remaining “distinct independent republics,” policing their own communities.[11] According to him, state governments are the pillars on which the federal head should rest, but “each state must be . . . a sovereign body”[12]
Thus the Antifederalists weren’t completely opposed to a federal government. However, they advocated for a strict separation of duties: foreign affairs in the federal, local governance in the states. They were concerned that a strong centralizing federal government would diminish citizens’ representation, while simultaneously exerting power directly into their lives.
Representation and Direct Power
Local governments provide extra security for personal liberty through close representation. Crooked people enter all levels of politics, but local politicians are more invested in their communities. They sit beside us in church, bump into us in the produce aisle, and share our sensibilities more closely. In such close quarters, representation is much stronger.
Farmer argued that a strong federal government endangered personal liberty, because representation would be little more than a “shadow.”[13] Since federal politicians, even those in the House of Representatives, spend so much time geographically removed from their constituents, they represent them inadequately.[14] In addition, America’s myriad needs demand that each piece of legislation be so broad that that it’s effectively useless for meeting many of the specific needs. Even when good legislation is passed, the people have no control over the “many thousand officers solely created by, and dependent upon the union” to enforce those laws.[15] And as we have seen, the federal bureaucracy knows no bounds.
While representation is less under the federalist system, the government’s role in the individual’s life is increased. As Farmer noted, the individual’s “happiness and prosperity . . . depend principally upon their own exertions.”[16] Government intrusion is more easily limited on the local level. Farmer argued that the “laws of one entire consolidated government” would circumscribe local governments and operate “immediately on the body of the people.”[17]
The Antifederalists preferred a system that allowed states to meet the requisitions and assignments of the federal government through their own systems.[18] With this plan, the unique abilities and needs of local communities wouldn’t be subsumed under the demands of the nation. In addition, state representatives could “stand between the union and individuals.”[19] In this capacity, state governments would become indispensable, counteracting the centralizing pull of the federal government.[20]
The Relevance of Antifederalism
Although the Antifederalists have often been maligned, Cornell points out, “Many scholars now concede that the Anti-Federalists might well have been more prescient than the victorious Federalists in describing the natural tendency of American constitutionalism to centralize authority.”[21] Supplementing the Constitution with the Bill of Rights successfully limited some of the federal government’s powers, but the states lost much.
Even though Madison’s original proposal to give the federal government the power to veto state laws was rejected, the general idea was adopted in the Constitution.[22] Chief Justice John Marshall, appointed by John Adams, brought Madison’s political ideas to life through the judiciary. Revealing “the hidden mysteries of the Constitution,” Marshall determined that the Supreme Court had the power to judge federal and state laws unconstitutional.[23] In this way, the Federalist Party, which couldn’t find enough supporters to continue past the 1820s, continues to dominate our political system.
Farmer saw clearly the inherent dangers of the Federalist plan: “Whether such a change . . . can be effected without convulsions and civil wars, whether such a change will not totally destroy the liberties of this country, time only can determine.”[24] Both fears proved well founded.
Although the War Between the States had many contributing factors, one was the federal government’s overreaching power. States found their sovereignty existed only at the pleasure of Washington D.C., rather than the other way around.
The situation has advanced significantly in our time. We’re constantly moving toward evermore centralized and intrusive government that is dismissive of the will of the people. In May, President Obama’s administration sued the state of North Carolina over its March 23, 2016 law, requiring people to use restrooms matching the biological gender on their birth certificate.
President Obama, knowing that such an unpopular policy would never make it through Congress then made an Executive Directive that public schools allow transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender preference.[25]
Conclusion
Even though the situation can seem hopeless, Cornell argues, “Localism continues to be a powerful force in American life.”[26] We need to encourage that spirit and resist the pull to focus only on national elections.
State and local governments can still protect our liberties, if we elect strong-minded politicians like Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer (D). In April of 2009, he signed into law the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which rejected the federal government’s right to regulate the intrastate commerce of firearms. If we encourage and elect local politicians of this sort, we can also begin to make big changes. As Kentucky Treasurer Allison Ball has said, “It doesn’t take much to perpetuate change, especially on the local level.”[27] Let’s start those changes in our schools, towns, counties, and states.
____________________
[1] Federal Farmer Letter I (October 8, 1787), in W. B. Allen and Gordon Lloyd, eds., The Essential Antifederalist, 2nd ed. (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002), 78-80.
[2] Paul Johnson, A History of the American People (New York: HarperCollins, 1998), 183.
[3] Saul Cornell, The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828 (Williamsburg: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 22.
[4] Ibid., 26-27.
[5] Ibid., 1.
[6] Cornell argues that Federal Farmer has received disproportionate recognition from historians, because of his sophisticated writing. Still, he admits that Farmer was significant to the Antifederalist cause in spite of his limited readership in the eighteenth century. See Ibid., 25-26.
[7] Johnson, 180.
[8] W. B. Allen and Gordon Lloyd eds., The Essential Antifederalist, 2nd ed. (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002), 76.
[9] Federal Farmer Letter I (October 8, 1787), in Allen and Lloyd, 78.
[10] Allen and Lloyd, 77.
[11] Federal Farmer Letter I (October 8, 1787), in Allen and Lloyd, 84.
[12] Federal Farmer Letter XVII (October 8, 1787), in Allen and Lloyd, 86-87.
[13] Ibid. 92.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid. 87.
[16] Federal Farmer Letter I (October 8, 1787), in Allen and Lloyd, 80.
[17] Federal Farmer Letter XVII (October 8, 1787), in Allen and Lloyd, 87.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Cornell, 1.
[22] Johnson, 185. Madison later abandoned the federalism for democratic-republicanism in part because he became convinced that the latter system offered better principles.
[23] Ibid., 237.
[24] Federal Farmer Letter I (October 8, 1787), in Allen and Lloyd, 81.
[25] Julie Hirschfeld Davis, “Obama Defends Transgender Directive for School Bathrooms,” New York Times, May 16, 2016; http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/us/politics/obama-defends-transgender-directive-for-school-bathrooms.html?_r=0; accessed October 20, 2016; Internet.
[26] Cornell, 1.
[27] Frank Thornsbury, “Transformational Leadership, Books, and Politics: An Interview with Allison Ball,” Helwys Society Forum, October 17, 2016; at http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/?p=6671; accessed October 22, 2016; Internet.
Recent Comments