John McCain is guilty of a crime that bothers me to no end. He uses political buzzwords that are actually the opposite of what he means to say. I believe George Orwell called this phenomenon “doublespeak” if I remember my literature correctly. It is a clever and devious political ploy used by those in need of power and support.
McCain appeared on George Stephanopoulos’s show on Sunday and was asked how he felt about Roe V Wade. He said he would support the decision being returned to the states instead of the Federal government deciding because “I’m a federalist." Only supporting state’s rights is not Federalism, it is the exact opposite of it. A Federalist is one who supports a strong central government by definition. McCain wanting the states to decide on their own is a very strong anti-Federalist position, not a Federalist one.
To understand the difference between a Federalist and an anti-Federalist one must go back to the founding of our constitution. There were those who wanted a strong central government to rule over all the states. These were the Federalists. They felt is was the best way to ensure all states followed the same rules and gave equally to the growing country. They felt the Articles of the Confederation left the United States weak and unprotected.
The Federalists were right in some regards, but they were countered by the anti-Federalists who feared the tyranny of the majority. They believed that the states were in the best position to decide what is best for them and there should be as little federal interference as possible in the day-to-day running of the state. They remembered that America was founded partially out of the fear of a strong central government.
I am not going to get into which side is right because there is no right answer. There are valid arguments for and against both these points of view, but McCain managed to use these terms in just the wrong way to come across as a “talking point spouting” fool. He cannot support state’s rights as a Federalist. It is that simple.
Article comments
1 - Baronius
federalism - distribution of power in a federation between the central authority and the constituent units (as states) involving esp. the allocation of significant lawmaking powers to those constituent units
- Webster's Law Dictionary
At the creation of our Constitution, the anti-federalists believed that a centralized government would inevitably swallow the power of the states. The federalists thought that wouldn't happen if the states were sufficiently protected in the Constitution. In that sense, they shared the same vision of states' rights. The federalists won the day, but I think history has supported the anti-federalists.
I don't know that there's a good American term for people who advocate a strong central government. Outside the US, it'd be called "statism", but that has a weird connotation.
2 - Bliffle
Thus McCains standing continues to crumble.
3 - Brad Schader
Bar,
Sorry it took me so long to respond. It has been one of those nights.
I may be wrong. Your definition does make it seem so, but I do not see that in Federalism as far as what McCain was referring to.
The Federalists were opposed to the Bill of Rights for example. They wanted the power of the central government to trump the state's. The Anti-Federalists were more inline with state's rights when issues like this come to play.
I think the term for those who want a strong centralized government is "Bushie". He is not a Republican because they generally want less government and less spending and he is not a Democrat because he favors business over people. "Bushie" should be a new political term for one who has the worst aspects of both parties.
4 - Turza
Sir, McCain is factually correct and consistent, you are factually incorrect and ignorant on these terms. You are incorrect as to the definition of Federalist, especially insofar as to its modern context. Primarily your mistake comes in seeing a two-sided coin rather than a spectrum. Anti-federalists, opposing the constitution, supported a confederacy under the pre-existing (though not very effective) Articles. Federalists wanted a stronger central government, but one still balanced with that of the states, and thus not a unitary government like the one they, just like the Anti-Federalists, had taken great pains to overthrow in tax-imposing London. Federalism is thus a balanced arrangement of power between central and provincial governments. Hence why we often heard back in 2003 how important it was to move Iraq to a Federal system, as everyone believed they would benefit from such a balance that respected the autonomy of the Kurds and Sunni provinces from the inevitable Shia majority, while still maintaining a central government with enough reserved powers (defense, diplomacy, interstate commerce, etc.) to maintain Iraq as a strong sovereign state.
Back to America. Ever since the Federalists got the constitution ratified, America was a well-balanced federalism until three improtant political events shifted it towards the unitary side of the spectrum. First the three constitutional amendments after the civil war, as well as the "understood" legal result of the outcome of the war that nullification was no longer constitutional. Second, the constituional amendment to allow an income taw by the federal government, drastically increasing DC's real power by giving it real funds. If the original Federalists were the central government lovers you make them out to be, they would have certainly written in such powers in their proposed Constitution. They did not, proving they were not. Third, the infamous "switch in time saves nine" Supreme Court bending under FDR's pressure to have them dramatically reinterpret the Constitution to permit the federal government vast more regulatory powers than had ever before been read to have. This reinterpretation of the US Constitution, combined with some more memorable (to our generation anyway) cases during the civil rights era which spoke of a "living" Constitution, has, in the minds of Reagan conservatives like McCain (and ostensibly such as President W. Bush based on his verbal favor of Justices Scalia and Thomas, though not at all if based on his actual policies as head of the executive) moved America from its balanced federalist center towards a unitary government where the power given unto the states in the constitution is neutralized, and done so not with contitutional amendments (the only legal route, under the constitution) but rather by judicial decree. Judges and lawyers - who you could somewhat inaccurately call conservative - who oppose this sliding away from America's constitutional balance of Federalism have organized a sort of legal social club called the Federalist Society. I encourage you right now to look them right now on Wikipedia. That's right, they are intelligent lawyers, includding Justices of the Supreme Court, and they believe in a federalism of what McCain was saying, where the federal government is more limited than the powers it is now granted, because those powers are not constitutionally appropiated.
So yes, Senator McCain is entirely correct that believing in federalism means believing that some areas of the rule of law are left to states. Neither McCain nor any other serious "states-right loving" Republican has in modern political history aligned themselves with the Anti-Federalists of the late 18th century, as that would mean they oppose the Constitution of the United States (as that was the entire reason reason for the Anti-Federalists in the first place), and if you know of any elected Republican who actually does take an official stand against the Constitution, that would impress me. Conservatives belive that many liberals have forsaken federalism (which gives states autonomous powers) ever since the sixties (since states used such powers to do things like enforce Jim Crow) and really before that during the New Deal (when FDR needed to grab power from the states, and from nowhere really, to enact his economic regulations and alphabet soup agencies), had have been diligently trying to reverse the trend since Reagan. The have seen success in this endeavor due to the decisions of the Reinquist court over the past two decades (though many were 5-4).
So please now admit sir, in respectable humility, that if anyone was using Orwellian doublespeak it was yourself, for declaring that Federalism and reserving areas of legal power to internal non-sovereign states are mutually exclusive, when in fact the latter defines the former.
5 - Dave Nalle
Brad, you seem to have confused the early political parties of Federalist (strong government) and anti-federalist (decentralized government) with the more general usage of the term 'federalist' which McCain is using, which refers to a government of divided powers composed of constituent states which retain most of the power of government under a federal government which provides oversight but not interference.
Dave
6 - Brad Schader
TO Tuz and Dave,
I did post this afterwards and may have been missed by you:
"I may be wrong. Your definition does make it seem so, but I do not see that in Federalism as far as what McCain was referring to.
The Federalists were opposed to the Bill of Rights for example. They wanted the power of the central government to trump the state's. The Anti-Federalists were more inline with state's rights when issues like this come to play."
I very well could be and probably am using an old version of the word. I never accepted the new version. It would be like, to me, calling a Confederate someone who loves the Union.
I will admit I am wrong with the modern usage of the word, but I do not accept the modern usage of the word since it stands opposed to everything the root of it came from.
I am wrong in the general context it seems though.
7 - D Ensley
Federalism in modern terminology simply refers to the belief that many things are better done and at the state levels and even farther down to the local level. Late Justice Rehnquist was an eloquent defender of this principle. McCain used the word correctly.
You are right about what the Federalist Party advocated, but that party is long dead. Make sure you have your facts straight before you start lecturing others.
8 - Brad Schader
This was no lecture, just a discussion. It is the only way to learn, well the best way IMHO. I learned from this thread and do not regret one word I wrote. People should never fear being wrong.
9 - Dave Nalle
The Federalists were opposed to the Bill of Rights for example. They wanted the power of the central government to trump the state's. The Anti-Federalists were more inline with state's rights when issues like this come to play."
But in fact, Federalists DID support the Bill of Rights. Some of the most prominent federalists supported it like John Adams, and since they were a majority at the Constitutional Convention, they had to have approved it for it to go to the legislatures for ratification. Most of the items in the Bill of Rights protect the rights of individuals, not states. Federalists were NOT opposed to individual rights, they just thought the country could function better with a stronger central administration.
I very well could be and probably am using an old version of the word. I never accepted the new version. It would be like, to me, calling a Confederate someone who loves the Union.
Well then you'd have to object to the Democrats constantly claiming a connection to Thomas Jefferson as an ideological leader, since his party was called Republican. But his Republican party and the current one are two entirely different things.
The usual distinction is that Federalist with a big F refers to the party and with a small f it refers to the political structure. Republican with a big R means the party, with a small r it means the support of a republican form of government which Jefferson advocated.
Dave
10 - Dave Nalle
BTW, McCain's not a 'moderate' anything. Check his record sometime. He's about as far right as they come on most issues.
Dave