A Running Commentary

(see previous post and RE: The Dougie Watch for background on the continuing thoughts and adventures of Dougie)

Well Dougie, the ‘why’ is simple; what to do about it is the hard part.

The absurd need to fuse all of your political positions into one presidential candidate is due to the grossly concentrated power of the American presidency and federal government as a whole. Almost from its inception, the U.S. national government has been in a constant mode of expansion. The executive branch in particular has, at varying rates of speed, grown to be a monster light years beyond its original conception. Even Federalists like Alexander Hamilton who vehemently advocated for a strong national government would likely be shocked at the current state of things.

Admittedly, hindsight reveals that many of these expansions were not only beneficial but in some instances necessary. Washington’s use of the military to quash the Whiskey Rebellion, decried by many at the time as unconstitutional, served to buttress the fragile new union. Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase blazed a trail for Presidential power but proved to be genius. Lincoln redefined Presidential Executive Orders, effectively grabbing legislative power for the executive, a clear Constitutional violation that has led to Presidential mischief to the present day. And yet his two best known such orders, more commonly known as the Emancipation Proclamation, carry a righteous validation that requires no defense.

This is not to say the Presidency has never been reined in. Even FDR and Congress had trouble getting some of their New Deal policies past the Supreme Court. Presidential use of Executive Orders was similarly curtailed after Truman’s use led to the landmark Youngstown case. The Watergate scandal drove Nixon from office and introduced the concept of an Independent Counsel, an office that has since haunted the presidency, leading to Clinton’s near impeachment in the 1990’s.

Federal legislative power has also expanded, often in the same way and under similar rationale. The “Commerce Clause” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution) grants Congress exclusive authority to manage trade activities between the states, with foreign nations, and Indian tribes. That little phrase “between the states” has been used to establish far-reaching Federal dominion over the American public whenever the slightest relation to “interstate commerce” can be found. Again, plenty of benefits have been realized as a result and law scholars all have their theories and arguments about what it is what.

Whatever the benefits, however, there is always a negative side to expanded national government. The more power is concentrated in the hands of a few, the harder it becomes for that power to be checked by the People. That a vote for President in 2008 is a simultaneous vote on such a myriad of issues demonstrates this point. Example: Imagine if there was no federal Department of Health for the President to control and, instead, each state had to regulate prescription drugs and address health care issues for themselves. Health Care would become a non-issue in national elections and local voters would instead look to their state assemblymen, senators, etc. on those issues.

Evaluating a Presidential candidate would change dramatically. If you like Obama’s position on the war but not his heavily socialized plans for health care, while alternatively you like McCain’s logical health plans but not his advocacy of the Iraqi war, your decision becomes much more clear. Health care is a non-issue so you don’t need to balance it against international policy. Power is decentralized from one national office and spread across a much broader number of representatives at the state level. Your voice on health care issues is no longer one person out of a nation of 300 Million but a local voice in a state of millions, cities of hundreds of thousands, and districts of thousands.

Clearly this over simplifies the matter. Many issues require overriding federal power (the battle against discrimination comes to mind) and the collective might of federal dollars. Voters in Wyoming, for example, may not necessarily be trusted to protect Yellowstone if their livelihoods are all based on logging. Residents of California might not fairly referee their use of water resources that impact the Colorado River. National funds would not easily be invested into sound projects like the Hoover Dam, and so on.

But the principle is a 100% sound. Concentrated power is dangerous and maligns a government “By the People, For the People”. Clearly there is a balance that must be struck. The question is where, and how?

More to follow; ideas welcome.