[Blog 2] Alec Mueller - Devolution and Localism
1. What are the two sides in the argument over "sanctuary cities"?
One side of this argument consists or Trump supporters, most of which want to crack down on these "sanctuary cities". The other side of this argument is mainly made up of the residents of these "sanctuary cities", who see it as extremely important to resist aggressive anti-illegal-immigration policies.
2. What does Chester mean by "distributism"?
Distributism is a political and economic philosophy articulated by G.K. Chesterton. Distributism argues for distribution of economic and political decision-making to very local levels. Chesterton interpreted this as local control of government, opposition to imperialism, fierce criticism of big business and the monopolies of the day, and a ferocious patriotism.
3. How do liberals and conservatives tend to feel about devolution?
Devolution is usually associated with and supported by conservatives who "tend to champion the rights of states". Liberals and democrats view devolution with disapproval because they see states' right as code for white supremacy.
4. Why do liberals find themselves increasingly supporting devolution?
Liberals have argued for devolution but not as much to states as to cities. It is within cities that progressives hold the most political power. Liberal cities have responded to Federal gridlock by testing progressive policies at the municipal level.
5. How does the author use the abortion issue to explain problems with federalism?
The authors uses the abortion issue to show that both sides think they need a federal law for abortion. Today when it comes to abortion, there is no federal agreement regarding it, and because of that we do not need a federal rule about it since nothing would ever pass.
6. What prevents the local governments from solving more political questions locally?
If we wanted more political questions to be solve locally, it would require a large scale rework of many federal laws as well as the reinterpretation of many supreme court cases. Changes to the management of issues such as abortion, immigration, and same-sex marriage may require drastic changes to federal statues and
often even constitutional jurisprudence.
7. Why does the author argue that conservatives would not really make drastic cuts to social programs?
In places like Florida, they would not make drastic cuts because the changes seem implausible. The author says that if it is extremely implausible then there would be no effective political blow back. If states had varied policies, the people in them would probably move to other states with more fitting governance for their views and needs. Those places will get more political and economic power because of this.
8. How would people be likely to respond if states were able to have more varied policies?
Having both political parties able to have the power to get a more complete vision of their platform at the state and local level would make everyone happy. However, the author says that after a few elections, devolution would get both parties to articulate more disciplined and realistic platforms.
9. Why does the author argue that conservatives should end their opposition to sanctuary cities?
Cities that have these sanctuaries show conservatism at its best. Having the problem solved by people who have local information and understand and support local political priorities is an example of conservatism. Since sanctuary cities are a solution made in this way, conservatives should stop trying to oppose them. The author says that as long as conservatives support states rulings over localities they will have no credibility in supporting the devolution of other matters.
10. What does the author mean by "True federalism is painful"?
The author thinks that if we follow true federalism, then we will end up with policies that no one believes in. Because of this, it is painful to allow neighbors to self govern when their ideals are very different from yours.
11. What do you anticipate would be the biggest problem if more local governments had more control over policy?
I think that the biggest problem would be dividing all of the land into equally represented districts. For example, states have the full faith and credit clause to ensure that the policies in one state are respected by all other states. However, when it comes to local governments, it would be extremely difficult to determine what policies affect what districts and regions.
1. What are the two sides in the argument over "sanctuary cities"?
One side of this argument consists or Trump supporters, most of which want to crack down on these "sanctuary cities". The other side of this argument is mainly made up of the residents of these "sanctuary cities", who see it as extremely important to resist aggressive anti-illegal-immigration policies.
2. What does Chester mean by "distributism"?
Distributism is a political and economic philosophy articulated by G.K. Chesterton. Distributism argues for distribution of economic and political decision-making to very local levels. Chesterton interpreted this as local control of government, opposition to imperialism, fierce criticism of big business and the monopolies of the day, and a ferocious patriotism.
3. How do liberals and conservatives tend to feel about devolution?
Devolution is usually associated with and supported by conservatives who "tend to champion the rights of states". Liberals and democrats view devolution with disapproval because they see states' right as code for white supremacy.
4. Why do liberals find themselves increasingly supporting devolution?
Liberals have argued for devolution but not as much to states as to cities. It is within cities that progressives hold the most political power. Liberal cities have responded to Federal gridlock by testing progressive policies at the municipal level.
5. How does the author use the abortion issue to explain problems with federalism?
The authors uses the abortion issue to show that both sides think they need a federal law for abortion. Today when it comes to abortion, there is no federal agreement regarding it, and because of that we do not need a federal rule about it since nothing would ever pass.
6. What prevents the local governments from solving more political questions locally?
If we wanted more political questions to be solve locally, it would require a large scale rework of many federal laws as well as the reinterpretation of many supreme court cases. Changes to the management of issues such as abortion, immigration, and same-sex marriage may require drastic changes to federal statues and
often even constitutional jurisprudence.
7. Why does the author argue that conservatives would not really make drastic cuts to social programs?
In places like Florida, they would not make drastic cuts because the changes seem implausible. The author says that if it is extremely implausible then there would be no effective political blow back. If states had varied policies, the people in them would probably move to other states with more fitting governance for their views and needs. Those places will get more political and economic power because of this.
8. How would people be likely to respond if states were able to have more varied policies?
Having both political parties able to have the power to get a more complete vision of their platform at the state and local level would make everyone happy. However, the author says that after a few elections, devolution would get both parties to articulate more disciplined and realistic platforms.
9. Why does the author argue that conservatives should end their opposition to sanctuary cities?
Cities that have these sanctuaries show conservatism at its best. Having the problem solved by people who have local information and understand and support local political priorities is an example of conservatism. Since sanctuary cities are a solution made in this way, conservatives should stop trying to oppose them. The author says that as long as conservatives support states rulings over localities they will have no credibility in supporting the devolution of other matters.
10. What does the author mean by "True federalism is painful"?
The author thinks that if we follow true federalism, then we will end up with policies that no one believes in. Because of this, it is painful to allow neighbors to self govern when their ideals are very different from yours.
11. What do you anticipate would be the biggest problem if more local governments had more control over policy?
I think that the biggest problem would be dividing all of the land into equally represented districts. For example, states have the full faith and credit clause to ensure that the policies in one state are respected by all other states. However, when it comes to local governments, it would be extremely difficult to determine what policies affect what districts and regions.
Comments
Post a Comment