Meddling for morality

Republicans are for states’ rights—when it suits them

See article

Readers' comments




While the article does a good job of spelling out the complete intellectual hypocrisy and simple-minded idiocy behind most Republican stances, the fact is that very few will care. Republicans have targeted the intellectually incurious and frankly there's enough of those to ensure a healthy electoral return in a majority of States. In a way it doesn't matter much that everything's a complete mess - all that matters is to ensure a stream of simplistic sound-bites about guns being good, Obama being a communist, and freedom & apple pie for everyone so long as they vote the Right way. Oh, and tea all round, of course.


Yup, conservatives these days want to be free of those onerous government shackles when it comes to how and where they pollute which actually affects others. But, they want to dictate what I put in my body, who I sleep with and how I end my life. Another one of the reasons I am an ex-Republican.

Dan Martin

It seems like this article is expressing some sense of shock that a politician or group of politicians will say one thing do precisely another. Surprised? Here's another one: the sky is blue!
Especially during an election year, there will much posturing and acting in the interests of garnering a majority of votes. Liberty, to so many, seem to be only pertinent when it involves guns, taxes, or healthcare. Apparently this doesn't extend to whom you choose to marry or when to end a pregnancy.
The libertarian fervor of the Republican party seems to have only emerged once Barack Obama took office. I heard nothing of balanced budgets and austerity when we were invading Afghanistan or Iraq, nor did I hear a peep when Congress passed unfunded Medicare prescription benefits. Ideals seem to be a great thing when your party does not occupy the White House. They quickly fade away once the Oval Office is won.

Kerry boy

The right has the same 'confusion' with the role of judicial review. For them, an "activist" judge is a liberal who holds a law they like unconstitutional. A conservative judge who sets aside a law they oppose is a "modest originalist."


Mr. Martin has succinctly summed it up. It's when we start taking the politicians seriously and out of their environment that the genesis of their beliefs becomes completely incoherent. The fact is that they are very accurately representing their constituents. A prime example is the poor Democratic rep in S. Carolina who had to do an about-face regarding his support for the health care bill when his district lines were re-drawn. It's not the Republican party that should be causing us all a lot of concern but the fact that they have legions of constituents who put them into the halls of power. The head-scratching took place when Nixon was re-elected and we "educated" types were shocked to learn there was a silent majority.

Sadly, this is democracy functioning exactly as it should. My personal opinion, certainly backed up by much data, is that the dismal state of the education system (which just happen to be correlated if not causally related with income and voting trends of the state and their literacy level) creates exactly the uneducated voter that Madison (and even Adam Smith) feared. That light at the end of the tunnel just might be the headlamp of fast approaching Majoritarian Tyranny.

Rob Roberts in reply to AtlantisKing

Boehner, Cantor and the House Republicans appear more than content to sit on their hands doing nothing. The debt ceiling hostage crisis last year that got us downgraded is a perfect example. No small part of the reason cited was 'political instability' (Tea Party).

One can't help but come to the conclusion they are in such a bubble, and such tunnel vision to destroy anything positive that might happen under this President, they've lost sight of the larger picture.

I find it unconscionable they spend their time on pointless, highly partisan wedge issues and nothing else.


Per the Washington Post, just 151 laws have been enacted in 19 months; more than two dozen of them were to rename post offices and courthouses, or add individuals to the Smithsonian board. By comparison, the previous Congress enacted 383 laws with President Barack Obama in the White House and Democrats controlling Capitol Hill. We are heading towards a fiscal cliff but have already tumbled off of the leadership cliff, not addressing root causes but posturing for soundbites.

WithAnOpenMind in reply to Pompatus

I don't see how one can read the right's position on abortion as a matter of individual rights unless you are talking about taking rights away from individuals.

The abolitionists were seeking to remove a restriction on a group of people.

On abortion, the right is seeking to impose a restriction on a group of people, thus limiting their individual rights.

Pompatus in reply to Asbjorn Johansen

Yeah, restrictions on abortion are a violation of the right to liberty and property (control over your own body). But, if life begins at conception, then abortion is also a violation of the right to life.

The article claims that the Republicans are inconsistent about federalism, but if life does begin at conception, then the federal government has clear authority under the 14th Amendment to pass restrictions on Abortion. The nature of federalism is not the issue here.

The text clearly says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws... The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Whether for, or against, the Federal government has clear jurisdiction. You can make the exact same argument for the Federal government prohibiting states from restricting abortion. Either way, there is no state's right case here at all.

So it all comes back to when life begins, again. I think we should just admit that Abortion is not a "debate", it's just an unresolvable difference on a fundamental issue. We keep going over the same ground, over and over, to no effect.


It is surprising that politicians are still getting mileage out of the argument about size government. The argument seems to be that bigger governments cost more because they employ more people. Those people in turn exert a greater negative influence on freedom. Therefore if you cut down the size of government you cut down both the amount of money required to run it and also reduce the possibility of interfering with freedom due to the influence of government employees. No one seems to give any thought to the fact in this modern age it is possible to set up systems for income transfer and control on a massive scale, which employ relatively few people.

I think the average American voter would be better advised to look more deeply into the whole system of government and not focus only on its size.

The fact is, that the American system of government has always been open to corruption. Over time special interests have learned how to work the system to their advantage. The principal problem lies in the way that elections are financed. To put it in its simplest terms, members of Congress of all parties are bought by their need for campaign contributions before a single vote is cast. Special interests know this very well. People and organizations with money can access the ear of Congress much more easily than the average voter.

The problem is further exacerbated by special interests use of paid lobbyists. Their function is to reinforce special interest requirements while Congress is in session. Lobbyists have also been known to contribute heavily to the writing of new laws.

I think that the politicians use the focus on smaller government as a way of diverting attention from the real problem. Campaign contributions are a way of buying elections. Therefore the obvious remedy to the problem is to take money out the process. This can be done by limiting the length of political campaigns and by specifying the total amount of money which can be collected and used by any candidate.

A good case can also be made for term limits on Congress. It's a well-known fact that incumbents are returned to office more often than their challengers. Shaking up the old boys club every so often might do wonders for the way that Congress operates. If term limits are a good thing for the office of president, why should they not be an equally good thing for Congress?

Until the fundamental problem of corruption is dealt with, I see no prospect of any real improvement.


You get the government you deserve.

Everyone is talking about money wins everything ... But why so! Why we the electorate behave like a clueless child and get excited or motivated by campaign advertizements !

Why do we even tell any polling agencies about who we voted for or even worse who we would support! Why do we get our information from radio talk shows, biased tv news and Internet blogs, or, cant seem to engage in basic scientific discussion!

Problem starts with us.

christina Marlowe

The Republican platform has long extolled the supposed virtues of a "smaller" Federal government and the absolute limitations and restrictions of the Federal government's functions, both vis-a-vis the individual State and vis-a-vis the individual citizen.

This position seems reasonable enough, except when one begins to measure Theory with actual Practice. And it doesn't take long for a dramatically different picture to emerge.

When this theory is actually put to the test of reality, however, "smaller" government only applies when it is the Democrats that gain control. The fact is that, throughout the last half of the 20th century and indeed the 21st century, the fact is that each time a Republican is handed the helm, the federal government is enormously expanded; It grows by leaps and bounds. More federal programs, more Executive privileges and powers, more government, Supreme Court appointees that rule to veritably strangle individual freedoms; A vastly Bigger Government with much tighter control.

The GOP platform also extolls the so-called virtues of strict laissez faire, free-market economic policies, Deregulation of any and all industry, and Privatization of public sectors. So corporations across every industry strenuously lobby for more and more deregulation; But of course, the fact is that every time these corporations are run into the ground, bankrupt, they ask for and receive Enormous Tax-payer-funded bailouts. Every time.

And the most astonishing Hypocrisy, of course, lies in the entire GOP Platform of Pure Tyranny with respect to so-called Social Issues. Republicans profess to stand staunchly and unbending for individual freedoms and individual liberties, IF AND ONLY IF they can have complete and total control. I cannot think of a more personal and private matter than one's individual decision regarding Pregnancy and Abortion, yet there they are, in all their "Hands-Off," "Laissez Faire" governance, forcing their opinions and so-called "values" down EVERYONE'S throats. And strenuously advocating for teaching "Creationism" in public schools, bible study in public schools.

So while all the self-styled "politicians" frenetically scurry to be next in line for the ultimate brass ring, the Presidency; All busily scampering to be the Biggest player in the Federal government, the very government they all claim to disdain, a few curious thoughts form:

Of course, the benefits of being in the dreaded government certainly are Infinite; And there are countless lifetime, career politicians who scratch and claw to Remain IN GOVERNMENT...Forever. And then the mobs who clamor ceaselessly to get into dreaded government positions themselves.

Each politician enjoys full health care benefits, i.e. on the taxpayer's dime, i.e. On the Dole. When it comes to any similar "benefits" for their "constituents," on the other hand, each wants to dismantle every program that has been put into place that benefits the public as a whole. Anything that resembles their own fully-TAXPAYER-funded benefits, they proclaim as wasteful frills and needless "perks" that are bankrupting the nation; PERKS such as basic health care access, education, housing; Further, they state that any similar benefits to American citizens, i.e. their own constituents, are an evil part of a "Welfare State," which will only lead to dreaded "Socialism." But they themselves remain forever on the DOLE, all of their lifetimes.

Plus, having been in the government as career politicians, living off of taxpayers money all their wretched lives and having had a taste of pathetic "power" and lame "control" over others, it's catapulted them into the Ultimate: Dancing with the Stars; American Idol; And then, at last, Idiot-Celebrity-Thug-cum-PRESIDENT-ELECT.

Maybe it's true that the voters who do vote for most of these government hacks truly DESERVE EVERY BIT OF IT. But what about the rest of us who do NOT vote for the likes of these barbaric, backward, short-sighted, insanely myopic tyrannical despots and dictators? After all, we ALL are left wide open to the SHRAPNEL from the Average-Moron-Voter here in America, Home of the...DUMB.

Freaux in reply to Dan Martin

Do you not remember the 90's when Clinton was received the same way? Consistency is not a strong suit of the modern Republican party. Just look at their selective amnesia when opining on Saint Reagan's policy stances. It's comically insulting to watch the various political contortions simply to appease a smaller, angrier, homogeneous and financially-concentrated base.

The old adage of "vote for the lesser of two evils" seems to have become "vote for the group that insults my intelligence the least". I'd vote for the Republicans more consistently if they'd actually practiced what they preached.

Laconophile in reply to St. Teilo

Actually, the true reason D.C. is not allowed any representation is because it is the home of all three Branches of the Federal Government. Giving the District representation would be the definition of impropriety. You can't have a state, however populous, contain all the pillars of our Republic! Please don't be blinded by your "fashionable" cynicism.

St. Teilo

The true reason why D.C. is not allowed more representation (or given to Maryland/allowed to form a state) is because it is overwhelmingly liberal. The conservatives have no desire to invite more liberals of power into the halls of the Capitol. To be fair, if D.C. was conservative, the liberals would do everything they could to prevent D.C. from gaining more rights.

It just goes to show how narrow-minded and short-sighted our politicians can be. As long as you can screw the other guy just a wee bit, it's alright to disenfranchise 620,000 sort-of American citizens.

FreedomUSA in reply to CA-Oxonian

You might be right in the near term but the demographics of the country is changing rapidly. The religious freaks like Christian Zionists are becoming a smaller percent of the country and poorer by the day.


Republicans don't necessarily really believe in small government or one with power devolved to the states. They simply have different priorities on the use of the federal government. Republicans are the ideological descendants of the old Federalist party of Alexander Hamilton; they would rather see a government that promotes business, has a strong military, and is the guardian and promoter of (Evangelical) Christian morality.


this artcle does a good job at defining the issue with the Republican party. There are very few positions held by all members of the party thus it resembles the democratic party in a lot of ways. Ex.not all repubs are for a big military, clearly not all are against big government, and some like the presidents healthcare plan..If there was a legitimate third party, I believe you would see 50% less dems and repubs because most of us are fed up with both parties.

Platform I believe in:
1. limited government - purge outdated laws, reduce the number of governmental redundancies DEA and the drug enforcement arm of the FBI should be merged, Secret Service as the security force of the Treasury should be ammended, elimination of the Customs and Border Patrol - shouldnt this be done by the military, etc.?
2. Elimination of the Dept of Education -education should be managed on a state level not fed level. If the education is good in a state people will move there.
3. US military should be used to only protect our borders (remove from any other country)
4. inconsistencies within the constitution should be addressed (17 to drive a car in most states, 18 to sign up for the military and the legal age for adulthood ("tried as an adult" yet 21 to drink, makes no sene)
5. term limits - no more than 4 consective terms for congressman and 2 for Senators.
6. no abolishment of Roe vs Wade - protection for womens rights should be maintained though government should not fund it in any way aka no funding for planned parent hood..

short list

J. Kemp

It is an easily observed fact that in America, on average, state and local government is vastly more corrupt than federal government. This is likely the result of two factors: (i) there are far fewer eyes watching the goings on at the state level, and (ii) the judicial and law enforcement mechanisms of many states are deeply infused with corruption, thus not inclined to root out their corrupt cousins in legislatures and agencies.

States rights is a quaint concept. In practice, it might work better if at least 50% of America's FBI resources were turned to the task of monitoring the behavior or state and local government and rooting out corruption. Then, it might be not just quaint, but effective.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
World Cup predictions: Scoring ourselves
Graphic detail July 12th, 19:03
Car technology: Turbocharged
Schumpeter July 12th, 9:00
Gun laws: Prayers and pistols
Democracy in America July 11th, 17:43
Daily chart: Justice on trial
Graphic detail July 11th, 13:40


Products and events



